Honig Vs Doe Case Study

Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
Facts: The Louise Lombard School is a developmental center for disabled children in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). It is here that seventeen-year-old John Doe, an emotionally-disturbed student assaulted another student. According to his April 1980 IEP, Doe had several goals set for coping with frustrating situations and relating to his peers. During the incident in November, Doe reacted to the taunts of other students by choking another student and leaving abrasions on the child’s neck. While being escorted to the principal’s office, Doe also kicked out a school window. The principal suspended Doe for five days. During his suspension, the Student Placement

Committee (SPC) recommended Doe be expelled. On the last day of his suspension, Doe’s mother was notified of the expulsion proposal and would be suspended until the expulsion hearings were completed. Doe brought the suit against the school officials and State Superintendent of Public Instruction alleging that the extended suspension and proposed expulsion violated the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). The District Judge directed that Doe return to his current educational placement at Louise School dependent on the completion of the IEP review process. Doe reentered the school five and half weeks and twenty-four school days after his initial suspension.
Jack Smith, also identified as an emotionally disturbed child, was a student at A.P Giannini Middle School – a public school in the SFUSD.

His February 1980 IEP claimed Smith was easily distracted, anxious and impulsive. It was proposed Smith be placed on a trial basis of a half day schedule. The following year when assigned to a full-day program, Smith started having misbehavior issues. The school met with the grandparents (guardians) and it was agreed to reduce Smith’s attendance to half-days with the warning that if his behavior continued, he would be expelled. In November, Smith was suspended for five days after lewd comments were made to another student. The SPC, similar to Doe’s case, extended the suspension indefinitely. Late November, it was protested the actions were almost identical to Doe’s and Smith was allowed to return to the half-day program at A.P.

Giannini.
Issue: When brought to the District Court, it was deemed that the claims of Doe and Smith were in fact favorable.

The proposed expulsions and suspensions from their disability behaviors deprived them of their right to a free and appropriate public education in accordance to the EHA. The Judge ordered the school district from making other disciplinary acts other than a two-to-five-day suspension against any disabled child for disability-related behaviors and ensured that the “stay-put” provision would be in place and no student would be removed. This went to the Ninth-Circuit appeal where the previous decision was affirmed and modified to allow up to a ten-day suspension.
Bill Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, requested a review of the Court of Appeals claiming that the stay-put provision conflicted with other appeals that had recognized a dangerous exception and that the directives put on school officials were burdensome and prevented school officials from removing potentially dangerous situations. Honig appealed for a rewrite of the

statute.
Ruling: The Supreme Court did review the file; however, they found that because John Doe had reached the age of 24, his case was considered moot. Jack Smith, on the other hand, was still of age and the case concerning him was reviewed. The Court declined the rewrite request from Honig and further discussed that it was not Congress’s intent for schools to feel their authority was stripped. The EHA and the “stay-put” provisions allow for other procedures to be used; therefore, the court agreed with the Ninth Circuit but also prohibited suspensions over a ten-day period.
Rationale: The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) requires that all children be provided a free appropriate public education which emphasizes the special education and services needed to meet the unique needs of the children. The act also ensures the children and their parents/guardians are protected. One of the safeguards in place is the “stay-put” provision which says that a disabled child should stay with the current educational placement. The issue at hand is whether authorities can exclude disabled students from the classroom when dangerous or disruptive conduct resulting from behaviors of their disability. The court’s ruling included that school officials have other ways to handle such behaviors such as “time-outs, study carrels, detention, restriction of privileges, or suspensions for up to 10 days.”
Importance: The importance of this case lies in specifically when disciplining children with disabilities, specifically those with emotional disabilities and behaviors resulting in such. It is important to make sure principals have a clear understanding of what is acceptable and not acceptable with expulsions and discipline. When dealing with students with disabilities the principal needs to make sure that the incident was/was not directly influenced by the disability. Because of the stipulations and rulings with the federal funding, it is possible that a wrongful discipline could result in the loss of federal funding for the school along with lawsuit from student/family.